Lord Tebbit is one of Britain's most outspoken conservative commentators and politicians. He was a senior cabinet minister in Margaret Thatcher's government and is a former Chairman of the Conservative Party. He has also worked in journalism, publishing, advertising and was a pilot in the RAF and British Overseas Airways.

Immigration and Labour voters: the most cynical act of vote-rigging in our history?

Well, well, well. So it looks as if there was a conspiracy after all. Or at the very least there was a conspiracy to cover up what looks very much like a conspiracy. As The Daily Telegraph reports today, it is due to the diligence of Migration Watch that we can now read the uncensored version of the paper drawn up to guide a discussion between the Home Office and the Cabinet Office in 2000.

What is really significant is the nature of the parts which had earlier been censored in the cover-up operation. They refer to the Government's social objectives for migration policy. Now what would they be? We get a hint of that in another of the censored passages, which refers to "significant cultural contributions".

There was even a section so secret that it was deleted in total. No wonder, for it sneered at the idea of reducing immigation to the irreducible minimum as "an objective with no economic or social justification".

It was established by an all party House of Lords Select Committee that there have been no worthwhile economic benefits from the Government's unlimited immigration policy. Now it is clear that, all along, it has been driven not just by half baked economics but by a determination to achieve "social benefits".

We are left to guess what those may be, but I doubt if it was all about more foreign takeaways in the high street. All the evidence is that immigrants from the Third World are more likely to vote NuLab than Conservative. So is that what it was all about? Was it the most cynical dirty act of vote-rigging in our history. Was it part of an effort to change the very nature of British society? Or was it both? And is that why it was all done in secret while Ministers were claiming to have an effective policy to limit immigration? We can only assume that the secrecy was because they knew perfectly well they would never have got that one past the British voters.

There is only one other puzzle about all this. Just why did it not feature right at the top of David Cameron's questions to the Prime Minister today?

Now now, please, don't all shout at once.

I read all the comments posted on this site and would like to comment on almost all – but I would not have time to do much else. Howevever, I felt there were some which just had to have a reply.

Will asked who won in 1066. Well, the Normans did militarily, but we all finished up speaking English and with a Saxon/Scandinavian attitude to our rulers. But then perhaps that is not altogether suprising, as the Normans were ethnically more Scandinavian than French or Latin.

Ben suggested that we should go out into the Third World and save some of the failing states (like Zimbabwe). As Elcazador noted, we've been there and done that. It was called the British Empire. And despite the simpering guilt-ridden apologists of the Left, I bet the poor people of Zimbabwe would like us back.

Rtj thought I should not complain about the Sinn Fein/IRA murdering my friends and crippling my wife. Well, actually, I do feel quite strongly about it and by rtj's logic I would have the right to kill the people who procured those crimes. Sinn Fein set aside the democratic option, becuase it could not win electoral support for its policy and unleashed its "military wing" that is its terrorist instead. For that there can be no justification or excuse.

Ryeatley asked how to communicate with Camp Cameron. Yes, I have that problem too. But I'll offer some advice after some more thought.

Carlos felt I was being dismissive of you lot by saying you were not statistically representative of the population as a whole. I thought that was complimentary! But it is technically accurate.

To Magpie I would say only that the facts of history speak for themselves and will inevitably include much about the nature of society through the ages.

Hotunderthe collar can cool down. The primary purpose rule was designed to exclude those whose marriage was primarily to gain admission to the UK. In his case that was clearly not so, so his wife would have been admitted.

When time permits I'll come back to some more of your posts, but in the meantime, although I do not agree with anything like all of what he wrote, I think that BTNG's post was interesting – but it does not undermine the case for the right of the people of these islands to decide who should come here to live alongside us.